[Justaman]

Considering that technology (especially in the semiconductor industry) is advancing at breakneck speeds, what do you see the future of firearms being 40 years from now? Will it still be 9mm,.40,.45, ammo, but used in radically different guns, or will a radically new type of ammo be invented? Personally, I think we will be using advanced materials and recoil systems. Of what they are, I cannot say.

[mrmeval]

I will not trust any firearm that mandates the use of electronics in their current form. We will need another war and have an express need for firearms with electronics. It will take that war and the investing of a very large load of money into such electronics.

Now the electronics we currently have do ok, when the batteries run out the gun still goes bang. Your EOTech, ACOG, Thermal sights, weapon cameras, lasers, IR lasers, IR or visible illuminators, etc can be of benefit.

You will se these all integrated together and will see them powered by fuel cells or an exceptionally high capacity storage system.

I do believe you will see some sort of battery standardization in the near future with fuel cells coming shortly after.

[gbran]

My 30'06 WSSSSSM bolt action rifle will have bluetooth technology connecting it to the heads-up display in my multifunction glasses (night vision, telescope, sun shades, etc.).

Just think, no more sighting in a scope.

[Justaman]

why not add an electric shaver to the mix

[Euclidean]

I've often wondered if they won't develop ammunition which will be electrically "detonated". Basically you pull the trigger, and instead of the hammer falling, a contact sparks to life for a split second. Imagine the incredible trigger pulls you could have, heck you could just have a button you wouldn't even need a conventional trigger.

Only downside to this is, you'd have to have a very small, very powerful, battery.

[Archie]

I think future weapons will either use some compressed gas function - a hyped up BB gun with replacable gas cylinder and actual jacketed bullets which engage rifling - or - some sort of magnetic pulse device expelling a ferrous projectile.

A modernized Gyro-jet (one which accelerates the projectiles faster from the muzzle) is another possibility.

The concept of a 'beam weapon' is theoretically possible, but still requires a lot of developement. The power source for a dangerous laser is still too cumbersome for an individual. Yet, things get smaller and more powerful all the time.

However, does everyone agree bows and arrows will still deliver death or serious bodily injury at a fairly rapid rate of fire under the proper conditions? By the same token, conventional firearms will still be serious weapons even after the invention of 'phasers' or whatever else.

[Jim Watson]

Euclidean,

It's been done repeatedly.
Search Remington Etronx for the most recent non-selling electrically primed sporting rifle. Maybe you could turn up something on Krico's effort; they had a rifle that fired conventional .22 lrs by a high amperage jolt across the rim. I remember an article about an electrically primed shotgun about 40 years ago, the Fusil Electrique from France.
S&W built a caseless SMG that fired electrically.
Yawn.

Archie,

There is not the stored energy in compressed gas that there is in a reactive propellant.
The Army did some work on liquid propellant for tank and SP guns. Just load the projectile and propellant would be injected behind it and ignited. That way propellant could be stored in odd shaped nooks and crannies and leave more room for shells.
There is not the electrical power storage density available for Gauss guns or beams.

[Hazzard]

Not science fiction

www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/1277311.html?page=2&c=y

[Euclidean]

Well there you go, I guess that ideal stinks so bad in practice is why I never heard of it.

Maybe the engineering is just not there yet to make it as viable or reliable as what we currently have.

[mrmeval]

With enough energy you can detonate a metal filament and by using properly shaped magnetic fields force it to go one direction, even using some of the explosive force to generate power to power the fields. You can also propel this with that same power.

Instant plasma weapon, just add power.

There are 'exploding wire' detonators that use the shock wave from an exploding wire to detonate the explosive. Nice thing is they can be kept with the explosive as can the controller that generates the electric charge. And they are about as inert as you could want baring a lightning strike or gigawatt radio pulse.

[Jim Watson]

Euclidean,

The electric ignition systems seem to have worked just fine. They just don't work any BETTER than percussion and cost more. So they don't sell in a competitive market. The military uses some, at taxpayer expense.

[DoubleTapDrew]

They could do some cool things if they can make electronics as reliable as mechanical weapons. I don't want to pull the trigger and have my gun say "Error 404 file not found- please reboot Windows Firearm 2008"
P.S.- I work in I.T. and I still don't want to deal with it

[quatin]

I think guns will still be guns as we see it now. Advancement in technology for the military is gearing towards unmanned vehicles and smart weapons. If anything, what will bombs and missiles look like 40 years form now :eek: .
You know one thing that I think may happen though? The use of caseless ammo, I just don't understand why it never continued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11

[Axman]

I would think that a safety system where the firearm recognizes the correct person holding the grip but if someone else took it from you the gun wouldn't fire. Kinda like a thumbprint recognition. I've seen it used in sci fi movies on laser weapons, thought it would be cool.

[Soybomb]

Call me a pessimist but I think in 40 years we'll still have roughly the same things we have now, if we're allowed to buy them at least. Much like how we're using roughly the same thing now that people were using 40 years ago. Tactical toys will be better in every way. Until we can make a suitable energy weapon which I dont think will be in 40 years I just don't see the basic setup changing much. I certainly don't want electronic ignition or anything like that.

[Geronimo45]

We'll probably still have the same guns. Different materials for bullets are likely. Pistols with spitzer rounds like the FN Five-SeveN could be used... and the 5.7 ammo is getting cheaper. It would not surprise me if the 5.7 became very big - mainly, the lack of overpenetration despite punching through armor with the AP round. Low recoil and high capacity doesn't hurt, either.

[Jim Watson]

Axman,

I would think that a safety system where the firearm recognizes the correct person holding the grip but if someone else took it from you the gun wouldn't fire.

You have to be real careful what you wish for. The antis want things like this too, and have funded research into "personalized" guns. I have to think that they plan to use it to remotely turn off your gun in case of, say, a hurricane; or if they want to raid your house because a court clerk put the dope pusher's address down wrong.

[Sylvan-Forge]

Some keyword search terms:


Moore's Law (Basically states that computer power doubles every 18-24 mos)

Nanotechnology & Nanocomputer (We are currently at the limit of micro-chip density)

Intelligence Amplification (interfacing to advance to direct neural connect)

Artificial Intelligence (computers that can think and reason) (weak to strong)

Technological Singularity


Not topical on its face, but IMO, there are profound implications in the above regarding the future of weaponry.
Especially if you consider when machines will be able to design themselves.
Strong AI is expected by ~2020 AD. The singularity (whatever that is), shortly thereafter.

[ozwyn]

I do not think electronics will be the big firearm revolution, but smart materials or other nano materials that either react to cancel out or otherwise negate the effects of recoil on the shooter.

You could see firearms in the next 20 years where larger calibers can be fired more and more easily because the frame may adapt to the shock and vibration of a round firing. That's my bet for the big revolution in firearm designs: large calibers with low "felt" recoil. Given the shooting publics general preferences, the first good design allowing such features could find itself a big hit in the market. (imagine marketing a .454 with 9mm recoil? a .308 with .22 recoil? advances in material technology similiar to some of the superlight body armor could make it happen)

that's my crazy .02

[Axman]

You have to be real careful what you wish for. The antis want things like this too, and have funded research into "personalized" guns. I have to think that they plan to use it to remotely turn off your gun in case of, say, a hurricane; or if they want to raid your house because a court clerk put the dope pusher's address down wrong.

I only thought this would be a good way to keep my own gun from being used against me should a struggle occur.

[USMC - Retired]

For those of you old enough, put yourselves back in the 60's or 70's and try to remember what kind of guns and cars we all thought we would have in the year 2000. Most of us thought we would be shooting lazers and driving flying cars. lol

[Jim Watson]

Then why do all the proposals to require "personalized" guns include exemptions for cops who are shot with their own or other cop's gun in about 15% of cases?
Gun control isn't about guns, it is about control.

[Hazzard]

I in no way agree with doing this, but here it is...

www.ivanhoe.com/science/story/2005/05/03a.html

[Fletchette]

I think that the military could develop rounds that do not depend on kinetic energy for their effectiveness. A fat, slow round containing a small shaped charge might be doable. Think of it as a minturized 203 round.

Of course, it would not be allowed for the unwashed masses.:mad:

[quatin]

Why do you see it bad to have personalized guns? I think it's a good idea, if you don't like it don't use it. I wouldn't want anyone but me or the people I trust using my guns.

[Fletchette]

Why do you see it bad to have personalized guns? I think it's a good idea, if you don't like it don't use it. I wouldn't want anyone but me or the people I trust using my guns.

User ID guns are dangerous because once they exist, then all guns will be mandated by law to be user ID guns, just like all current revolvers have the damn child saftey lock on them. You CANNOT get a new production gun without it (no choice).

Once user ID guns are standard, expect your gun not to work at the flip of some switch in Washington.

[Run&Shoot]

I think the big advancements will be in materials and sights. Look at just the last 20 years how we have seen the explosion in use of polymers, titanium, scandium alloys. In bullets we have seen new stuff like highly advanced JHP designs, frangibles, lead free, etc.

The trend seems to be for ever more convenient size and weight balanced with recoil (light weight Glocks, Kahr and Kel-tecs), or for ever more powerful capabilities (.500 S&W, .480 Ruger, popularized .454 Casull).

So, I think we will see slimmer slides of new materials. Perhaps tungsten alloy that would have more strength so it could be slimmer, yet also stonger and still have the weight for proper cycling? Maybe Ruger will eventually make a titanium Sp101 and GP100?

Sights are a wide open field. There is already an amazing array of iron, tritium, and electronic sights. I like the idea of a remote sighting system. Sort of the speed and convenience of point/instictive shooting with the accuracy of a red dot. I think minaturization will happen for all electronic displays such as TV, computer, etc and firearm sights will follow. The largest component of any electronic viewing system today is the display. Eliminate the traditional display and get it hooked to a near-eyball projector and the sight would be a hundred times less breakable, require much less power, and would be a fraction of the current size of red dot or ACOG sights today.

[mrmeval]

User ID guns would be cool for the hacker. How about turning all the cops weapons off on hell night? During a riot? If withing a block of your nefarious doings?

[hank327]

Firearms are a "mature" technology. Firearms today, are basically the same as they were 100 years ago. I think we can expect only incremental improvements in the overall design of firearms. Things such as the use of new materials in the construction of firearms, improvements in the design of the projectiles and improvement in the propulsion (ie: caseless ammunition that actually works) side of ammunition.

I think the firearms of 50 years from now will probably be very much like the ones we have today. The next big leap forward in weaponry will have to await the developement of new technology, much like when firearms first arrived on the scene and started to replace muscle powered weapons such as swords, spears and bows.

[DRMMR02]

That's a great point. The more complicated you make something, the more things can go wrong. And if we make the operation of our firearms dependent on more and more complicated things, like electronics and all sorts of fail-safes, the chances of them failing, by accident or by nefarious means, rises higher and higher.

Imagine a criminal with some sort of EMP or some other electronic interference device shorting out all the police weapons in a certain area.

The more automated things get, the more chances there are for people to mess with them. I saw a program on TV about how the highways and cars of the future will be automated so you don't even have to drive. All the cars and traffic will be directly controlled by some mainframe. Imagine if a terrorist or hacker messed with that program.

Automation and technology are great things, but you must ALWAYS keep humans in the loop with the final word. We can let our guns help us use them properly. But we can't let the "machine" aspect override the "human" aspect. So no matter what new toys you add to the weapon, if a human wants it to go "bang" it needs to be able to go "bang".

[Warren]

I don't know how things will look, but there is one concept I would like to see tried.

This comes from a sci-fi book I read, natch, that was set in the BattleTech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleTech) universe. In one of the early books a rifle was described as being fed a solid block of some sort of plastic or polymer. The soldier placed the block in the same place a mag would go and the gun would srtip off the plastic, hyper-accelerate it and send it out the muzzle.

I've always thought that would be a cool idea.

[D-R]

Warren,

Needler rifle and pistol. Was a cool idea, no?

D-R